People more likely to use Internet to find an attorney, survey says

May 21, 2014
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Forget the phone book, billboard or even word of mouth referrals. You’re future clients are going to find you based on searching the World Wide Web, according to a recent survey.

We live in a society that is constantly connected thanks to the Internet and expects immediate results – again, in part thanks to the Internet. It makes sense then that a survey by FindLaw.com and Thomson Reuters found that the top choice of people in need of legal representation is to use the Internet to find an attorney.

The Internet gives potential clients a great deal of information – attorney websites, service reviews and any disciplinary history. You can’t get this information from a phone book ad or a TV commercial. And it gives you that information in a very short amount of time.

And while I believe word of mouth is still a great way to find an attorney, what happens if your friend’s cousin is a highly respected family law attorney, but you need a bankruptcy attorney?

The survey found 38 percent of people polled said they would use the Internet to help them find a lawyer; 29 percent said they would ask a friend or relative. Compare those numbers to a 2005 survey, in which only 7 percent said they would use the Internet to find an attorney and a whopping 65 percent reported they would find an attorney through word of mouth. 

Only 4 percent of respondents turn to the phone book these days; 10 percent said they used the phone book to find an attorney in 2005. Today, 10 percent of people polled said they would consult with the local bar association as compared to 13 percent of people surveyed in 2005.

Law firms know that they may land a significant percentage of their clients based on the Internet – that’s why you see so many firms with jazzy Web sites complete with lawyer bios, firm news touting the awards and accomplishments of its attorneys, and blogs and legal articles. In fact, these days, it’s almost looked at as suspect if a company – law firms included – doesn’t have a website.

How much of your business is generated through the Internet? When did you start to see a shift to the Internet being a major driver of clients to your firm?
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT